Who will run against trump in 2020?

[HunterAcosta]

One of them would have to switch parties but the Rock brothers, Kid and The , would be top contenders . Not sure if the other Rock, Chris would run .

 

[waiguoren]

How do you make sense of the comment?

Generally, ID politics is extremely asymmetrical in America. The right is far, far more concerned with it, in part because the political right has a very unpopular economic agenda.

The guy wrote "I'm guessing it will be Kamala Harris in a pure ID politics play."

Meaning: he thinks the Party would not push Harris if not for her demographic ID. In other words, if Harris were not a darker-skinned female, the Party would not favor her.

How did you get from this that "being non-white invalidates her candidacy"?

Most likely Obama would not have beaten Clinton if the former were not at least part black. Does my stating this "invalidate his candidacy"?

 

[Jack V Savage]

The guy wrote "I'm guessing it will be Kamala Harris in a pure ID politics play."

Meaning: he thinks the Party would not push Harris if not for her demographic ID. In other words, if Harris were not a darker-skinned female, the Party would not favor her.

How did you get from this that "being non-white invalidates her candidacy"?

The assumption that her identity is the sole reason for her candidacy (and the assumption that she'd win, when in fact, she'd be a massive underdog) is based on her identity. The legitimacy of her candidacy is being dismissed solely because she's not a white male. Oddly, given that Trump won largely on his identity as a white male, it doesn't occur to him that her identity is an obstacle.

 

[waiguoren]

The assumption that her identity is the sole reason for her candidacy

That's not what I got from the comment. I think he was saying the Party chiefs would favor her over the other candidates because of her sex/skin color.

The legitimacy of her candidacy is being dismissed solely because she's not a white male.

I don't think so. It's probably because, among other reasons, she has not behaved herself well during various Senate testimonies such as:

 

[Jack V Savage]

That's not what I got from the comment. I think he was saying the Party chiefs would favor her over the other candidates because of her sex/skin color.

Who are these "Party chiefs"? What makes him think that?

I think a common misconception from right-wingers who are obsessed with identity politics is that their obsession is normal.

I don't think so. It's probably because, among other reasons, she has not behaved herself well during various Senate testimonies such as:

This does not appear to be a textually supported interpretation. I think you're being disingenuous by denying that the sole reason for dismissing her candidacy is her skin color and gender. And I even said myself that I think her resume is lacking (and she wouldn't have my primary support on that basis, despite my general high regard for her). You just don't see white candidates have their candidacy dismissed on the same basis--even Trump, who again, was extraordinarily unqualified and ran almost solely on identity politics, not even bothering to acquaint himself with issues in any serious way.

 

[waiguoren]

Who are these "Party chiefs"? What makes him think that?

I think a common misconception from right-wingers who are obsessed with identity politics is that their obsession is normal.

Typically Party chiefs have a preferred candidate. The DNC Chair is an example of a Party chief. Many believe that Wasserman-Schultz favored Clinton, and her successor was found to have leaked debate questions to the Clinton campaign. For example, in 2015/2016 the RNC favored Jeb Bush or Marco Rubio and despised Trump.

Most of the right-wing use of ID politics is reactionary:

When a Democratic strategist says white people shouldn't be leading the Democratic Party, the Right reacts.

When Obama/Clinton spin a narrative that police unfairly target black people at a higher rate than whites, and Clinton invites the mothers of people like Mike Brown to the Democratic convention, the Right reacts.

When Obama invites "clock boy" to the White House when it's clear he never would have done so for a white kid, the Right reacts.

I think you're being disingenuous by denying that the sole reason for dismissing her candidacy is her skin color and gender.

I don't dismiss her candidacy, I'm simply saying there are probably other things people don't like about her and your obsession with skin color is bizarre.

 

[Jack V Savage]

The DNC Chair is an example of a Party chief. Many believe that Wasserman-Shultz favored Clinton, and her successor was found to have leaked debate questions to the Clinton campaign. Typically Party chiefs have a preferred candidate. For example, in 2015/2016 the RNC favored Jeb Bush or Marco Rubio and despised Trump.

So the view is that Tom Perez favors Harris? Is that based on anything more than uninformed speculation?

Most of the right-wing use of ID politics is reactionary:

When a Democratic strategist says white people shouldn't be leading the Democratic Party, the Right reacts.

Right. When some rando somewhere says something, the mainstream right uses it to justify going further down the path of identity politics. Because the right's economic agenda is highly unpopular (polls show plurality support among Republicans for increased tax progressivity, higher MWs, and other policies that go against the core mission of the party), identity politics is how right-wingers get support. Politically, the left *loses* ground on identity politics and wins ground on a more policy-centered discussion. Both sides are well aware of this.

I don't dismiss her candidacy, I'm simply saying there are probably other things people don't like about her and your obsession with skin color is bizarre.

You're grossly misrepresenting the discussion. My point was criticizing obsession with her skin color, which you then defended.

 

[44nutman]

I think Clogged Arteries beats Trump in 2020.

 

[peytonlucy]

As I've been saying since 11/9/2016 - there's a 10% chance that it will be Hillary.

 

[drstrangelov]

It's an interesting question, there isn't some breakout Democrat in waiting right now. There's your usual suspect governors and senators who will make a push for the candidacy, but even the black guys are pretty damned vanilla. I'd bet that anybody under 60 is gonna wait out the midterms to see how vulnerable Trump is before seriously committing to a 2020 run.

I guess they could send up Warren or Sanders (if he's still alive) and let the country rule on New England progressivism. Let draft dodger trump go head to head with faked ancestry Warren to determine who's got less character.

 

[zebby23]

According to @ripskater it's going to be Obama

 

[Sir Galahad]

Camilla Harris

That's all you need to know.

She will lose.

 

[Deleted member 502383]

A constitutional conservative will take over from Donald Trump in 2020.

 

[Fugazy]

There is no way to know who will run against Pence at this point.

<Lmaoo>

The plus side is Pence can finish this term and then elected 2x

 

[Thunderflash500]

A constitutional conservative will take over from Donald Trump in 2020.

Doubt it. They are such phony ass holes. People will probably pick the phony ass hole that promises free shit.

 

[BOWHUNTER]

I think it's very unlikely that Trump runs in 2020.

You're right. In 2019 he will be coronated God Emperor

 

[nac386]

You're right. In 2019 he will be coronated God Emperor

Is this from Dungeons and Dragons or something?

 

[Space]

Is this from Dungeons and Dragons or something?

Warhammer 40K, close enough.

 

[Amerikuracana]

Pretty sure it would be Nazi not to have minorities as the candidates..

 

[Orgasmo]

So you're okay with a Democrat and Neo-Liberal in office?